Re: New Transfer Rule

Based on what it's saying, not sure it's really going to be too big of a deal. Sure, the Big Roll-a-D20 are going to be the first on the phones, but if the kids are unhappy with being at that school, does the school really want to make things worse by making them stay? Plus, with our sport, it takes a kid two minutes to sign on the dotted line, go to Major Junior, and nothing the NCAA or the school can do about it.

Re: New Transfer Rule

I can see a player putting up good numbers at a small school (or "non-name" school), and then a big name school, through some back door channels (other players, friends, past coaches, etc.) saying "hey, we really like the number you put up last year! Why don't you think about coming over and playing for us next year. I think we can find a spot for you."

Re: New Transfer Rule

Originally Posted by beaverhockeyfan

I can see a player putting up good numbers at a small school (or "non-name" school), and then a big name school, through some back door channels (other players, friends, past coaches, etc.) saying "hey, we really like the number you put up last year! Why don't you think about coming over and playing for us next year. I think we can find a spot for you."

Maybe that is just the cynic in me.

Possible, I suppose. But equally likely is the highly regarded prospect who goes to the big school and gets 4th line minutes with no PP, and decides he'd like to showcase his talents somewhere else

Re: New Transfer Rule

I haven't read anything regarding the elimination of having to sit out for a year, so I don't see this change as having much impact on men's hockey. I think the possibility of a player being able to play up to a 1/3 of the season and still be redshirted will have much more of an impact. Of course, that is still to be decided for sports other than football.

I haven't read anything regarding the elimination of having to sit out for a year, so I don't see this change as having much impact on men's hockey. I think the possibility of a player being able to play up to a 1/3 of the season and still be redshirted will have much more of an impact. Of course, that is still to be decided for sports other than football.

Sean

In the email I got this morning, the year “in residence” is still required.

Re: New Transfer Rule

Originally Posted by beaverhockeyfan

I can see a player putting up good numbers at a small school (or "non-name" school), and then a big name school, through some back door channels (other players, friends, past coaches, etc.) saying "hey, we really like the number you put up last year! Why don't you think about coming over and playing for us next year. I think we can find a spot for you."

Maybe that is just the cynic in me.

That will never happen. never has ....never will.

Alaska Dispatch .... Doyle WoodyUAF made the kind of hockey history on October 10th 2015 that no team wants to claim – the Nanooks became the first NCAA Division I victim of Arizona State.

Originally Posted by WeWantMore At least you guys have Packers colors.

Re: New Transfer Rule

Originally Posted by Sean Pickett

I haven't read anything regarding the elimination of having to sit out for a year, so I don't see this change as having much impact on men's hockey. I think the possibility of a player being able to play up to a 1/3 of the season and still be redshirted will have much more of an impact. Of course, that is still to be decided for sports other than football.

Sean

Is this redshirt policy retroactive? Does it apply to players who played just a few games a year or two ago?

Originally Posted by aparchI love the "UA_" comment. When I see it, I think of re-runs of Match Game, and Gene Rayburn going "U, A, Blank... UA blank"

From ADN:

"According to NCAA, the (UAF) hockey team used ineligible players in every game played from the 2007-08 season to the 2010-11 season. Over that span, the wins and ties will all become losses. 4 wins and 2 ties came against rival UAA".

Re: New Transfer Rule

Originally Posted by Sean Pickett

I think the possibility of a player being able to play up to a 1/3 of the season and still be redshirted will have much more of an impact. Of course, that is still to be decided for sports other than football.

Hockey players could already redshirt for a year if they play in under 1/3 of the games and all the games were in the first half of the season. Kevin Lohan is the first example that pops into my head of someone who played 5 years, I believe Patrick Grasso is also applying for a redshirt for last season.

Re: New Transfer Rule

While that's true, medical redshirts had already existed in football too. Now you could just play guys whenever and apply for a normal redshirt if they're under the threshold no matter when they played instead of needing to get injured before December. Very different standard. I'd imagine the medical RS basically goes away now, except for upperclassmen who have already redshirted and miss another year.

Re: New Transfer Rule

Originally Posted by Suze

Is this redshirt policy retroactive? Does it apply to players who played just a few games a year or two ago?

No, it is not retroactive.

Originally Posted by TheRevengeance

While that's true, medical redshirts had already existed in football too. Now you could just play guys whenever and apply for a normal redshirt if they're under the threshold no matter when they played instead of needing to get injured before December. Very different standard. I'd imagine the medical RS basically goes away now, except for upperclassmen who have already redshirted and miss another year.

From what I read it is still 5 years to play 4, so a player will only get one redshirt year. However, as you mention, it is much more flexible and if adopted for other sports it would basically replace the medical redshirt. It could even lead to more graduate transfers, which are already on the rise in hockey.